QUOTE(Heat @ Wed 28th October 2009, 11:05am)
It appears we have a situation where people are utilizing tunnel vision because of their feelings about SlimVirgin. I don't see why anyone here should view the arugments around Larouche articles any differently than arguments around Scientology related articles, Prem Rewat or the Unification Church. In all these cases (and others) there will be a tendency for the organization itself or its most ardent supporters to edit aggressively in order to protect their organization or leader from criticism and, as much as possible, promote the entities own world view or at least its view on itself. Small, highly committed organizations such as these are actually far more likely to engage in aggressive editing campaigns than large companies that feel less threatened.
Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology is nearly as bad as its coverage of LaRouche. In both cases Wikipedia takes a very non-neutral, hostile line toward the topic. The guardians of the respective topics use their considerable political influence within the site to squash anyone who attempts to move the articles away from the house point of view on these issues, on the assumption that anyone who does so is a member of the organization question. I have no doubt that well-meaning "innocents" attempting to establish something more closely resembling neutrality on these topics have been chased off or even banned for their efforts.
I'm no fan of either Scientology or of LaRouche, but I would be embarrassed by the state of these articles were I a Wikipedian. They are not remotely neutral, and never will be, not as long as people like David Gerard and SlimVirgin have their respective ways.