While this is a well written and referenced article, I'm not sure that it fits under the SourceWatch mission of tracking the people, groups and issues shaping the public agenda.
What do others think?
-- Diane Farsetta 10:58, 21 August 2009 (EDT)
Diane, I was wondering the same thing myself. At first I thought it might have been a duplicate of a Wikipedia article but it wasn't. So I thought that while it is perhaps a little tangential to our core pages, it does address a specific example of a conspiracy theory that has been widely propagated. And, given the breadth of material that is in SW that's not quite on our core topics (and the variety of ways such pages can be creatively used by writers etc), on balance I erred on leaving it on the site (though the format of some of the references could do with a little tweaking).--Bob Burton 04:13, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
Thank you for your thoughts and opinions! I agree that it needs adding text that more closely matches SourceWatch goals and I'm going to try to add it in the next days. This would be important for the article itself too. --lucho 10:37, 25 August 2009 (EDT)