User talk:Adam Carr/Documents2

This is not a re-write. This article simply retains the derogatory material from Chip Berlet and Dennis King in the present articles, while eliminating anything which might balance it. It is a clinical case of an article which has been "POVed," with an extra dollop of snideness a la Adam Carr thrown in as a finishing touch. --HK 15:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Berlet and King are the recognised authorities on the LaRouche cult and their comments need to be given due weight. Adam 23:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Under the NPOV policy, their comments need to be given due weight, and then balanced with rebuttal material. You, on the other hand, have historically demonstrated an inability to write about LaRouche without becoming completely overwrought and producing a hopelessly and unacceptably POV product. --HK 13:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This brings us to the heart of the problem with this article: there is no rebuttal material to Berlet and King, because no-one who is not actually a member of the LaRouche cult disputes their observations. The obvious analogy is Hitler: no-one who is not a Nazi defends Hitler's reputation, so there is no rebuttal material for the characterisation of Hitler as evil, but we do not insist that half the Hitler article be written by Nazis. Adam 22:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought this sort of thing was covered at WP:NPOV, which says nothing about "balanc[ing] with rebuttal material" as if this were some debating society or voter's pamphlet. It does say, We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.. See also WP:NPOV. Seems pretty straightforward. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)