[WikiEN-l] Odd

[slimvirgin at gmail.com]

On 7/12/05, Snowspinner <snowspinner at 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