Original Research versus Point of View, was Re: [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho

[Tony Sidaway]

> The Lyndon LaRouche supporters provide a good example of the way
> Wikipedia doesn't defend itself well against determined POV pushers.
> The arbcom ruled that original research emanating from the LaRouche
> movement may be used on articles "closely related" to LaRouche. A
> consequence of this is that the article [[Lyndon LaRouche]] now cites
> claims that LaRouche developed the Star Wars program, properly
> referenced to someone interviewed on LaRouche cable television. This is
> just one of scores of similar claims in the 17 articles on the
> LaRouche template, but you have to be knowledgeable to sort out which
> claims are LaRouche nonsense, because they're not always as obvious as
> the Star Wars one.

I'm sorry but your claim here simply isn't borne out by the text of the
article in question.  The only mention of Star Wars is in a paragraph that
that starts: "Separating fact from fiction in LaRouche's biography is made
difficult by the barrages of conflicting accounts generated by the
LaRouche movement and its critics" and goes on to say that LaRouche
"claims to have pioneered such ideas as the International Development
Bank, the Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars," and the so-called
Eurasian Land-Bridge"
Nowhere does the article make the claim that LaRouche's claim is a fact.
>
> They have also been through arbitration. The arbcom ruled that
> LaRouche publications count as "original research" but may be used as
> sources in articles "closely related" to LaRouche and his movement. As
> a result, the LaRouche editors have taken ownership of the 17 articles
> on the LaRouche template, and are constantly trying to bring other
> articles into the "closely related" fold.

I've looked at those seventeen articles.  Which of them do you think are
not closely related to the LaRouche affair?